Is School District Wealth
Related Standardized Test Scores?

Gordon Snow
Bloomsburg University

     Pennsylvania’s 2006-2007 state budget includes an appropriation to study the way schools are funded and make recommendations toward reforming the educational finance system. Many lawmakers are asking for an educational funding system that creates greater equity and adequacy, particularly for students in poverty, with disabilities, and with limited English proficiency. The study could become the basis for a totally new method of state funding for basic education. This initiative represents the Commonwealth’s first major attempt at school funding revision since a group of small and rural schools challenged the educational finances system in the state court more than a decade ago (PARRS v. Ridge, 1998).
     It is the goal of the Pennsylvania State Board of Education to find a fairer method of distributing financing its public schools. Every child in the Commonwealth should attend a school which has the necessary funds, to hire and keep good teachers, maintain a safe learning environment, provide buildings, and provide up-to-date instructional materials. If the state is to reach this target, the current antiquated and inequitable system must be replaced.
     In order to get a better understanding of the need for financial reform of Pennsylvania’s PK-12 school funding system, it is helpful to review available information on significant attempts to alter public school funding.

Review of the Literature

California and Serrano v. Priest
     In the early 1970’s, California was required to address the issue of school funding. At that time, California’s school financing system relied substantially on property tax assessments. Funding was challenged under the equal protection clauses of both the United States and California Constitutions. Based on the wide disparity in property values among the school districts, the California Supreme Court ruled the school funding system was unconstitutional (Serrano v. Priest, 1971).
     In the Serrano case, the court found that differences in school district wealth to be so great that the variance determined the quality of education in individual districts. Specifically, California’s reliance on property tax assessments had a disparate effect on per-pupil expenditures, denying certain students access to a quality education and was therefore, unconstitutional. Although the California Supreme Court decision fell short or requiring other states to reform their school funding systems, school leaders in other states did begin to look at school finances. The Serrano decision was the first of many cases that were heard in a number of states and all these cases used some of the arguments found in the Serrano decision.
Rodriquez v. San Antonio Independent School District
     A Texas district court heard a case brought by parents of children in the poorest school in the San Antonio Area. The three-judge district court held that the method Texas used to finance schools violated student’s equal protection rights. Later, the U. S. Supreme Court (Rodriquez v. San Antonio Independent School District, 1973) reversed the state court decision and ruled that the Texas school funding system was not unconstitutional. In the appeal, however, the U.S. Supreme court did find that wide differences in school wealth violated the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
     One of the results of Rodriquez was to make state courts the focus of school funding equity challenges. Cases that have followed were heard in numerous state courts across the Nation. Another result of the Rodriquez case was the continued attention on school funding. While the U.S. Supreme Court did not sustain the state court ruling, the ruling did acknowledge funding and expenditure inequality between wealthy and poorer school districts. After the Rodriquez decision, the Texas legislature began to adjust its support for local school districts resulting in poorer districts receiving greater funds (Sparkman & Carpenter, 1994).
New Jersey and Abbott v. Burke
     Abbott v. Burke refers to a series of New Jersey State Supreme Court decisions that speak to various aspects of school funding. The New Jersey State Supreme Court ruled that the educational programs offered students in poorer school districts were neither thorough nor efficient. Furthermore, the court originally designated 28 school districts as lacking the necessary funds to offer students an education as found in the 100 top spending districts (Abbott v. Burke, 1990).
     One of the most significant changes to New Jersey’s school funding that came from the Abbott decisions was the quality education Act of 1990. This legislation was designed to enhance educational opportunities for New Jersey’s children by guaranteeing an adequate for education (Goertz, 1994). This was a foundation grant program where the state determined the minimum required amounts that should be spent for each child and provided the necessary funds the Abbott district to reach that level of spending.
     Later extensions of Abbott v. Burke have pointed to programs offered such as mandated preschool programs in Abbott districts and assistance for school district building construction. Various mandates later added continued to send more funds to the poorer schools. As the number of school designated as Abbott has increased from the original 28, Abbott school districts have used increased revenues to work toward parity with the state’s wealthiest school districts.
Equity School Funding in Pennsylvania
     Equity school funding can be traced back to the implementation of the Pennsylvania School Code of 1949 when state funding was based on what the state designated as teaching units. An advance occurred in 1957 when the state educational funding was based on instructional expenses that occurred in the school districts. That system was replaced in 1966, when the Commonwealth designed the Equalized Supplement for Student Learning that made an attempt to distribute more funds to the poorer school districts. Although there were numerous modifications to the original act, it was the first attempt at equity funding of schools. That formula was essentially frozen in 1992-93 along with a number of inequities associated with that system, but still remains the basis for school funding in the state (PA Association of Rural and Small Schools, 2004).
     Over they years, the Commonwealth’s attempts at equity funding have had many critics. It is easy to see that the same reasoning that led to the California decision in1972, could apply to Pennsylvania which also relies heavily or real estate taxes for funding its schools. The most recent attempt came in 1998 as a group of rural and small schools took legal action in the state courts against the then Governor Ridge and others to revise the state school funding system. The Plaintiffs contention was that rural and small school districts were not given sufficient funds to operate quality educational programs. While the judge found in favor of the defendants, the case did serve to keep attention on the need for a more equitable education funding (P.A.R.R.S. v. Ridge, 1998).
Student Achievement in Pennsylvania
     According to the Education Law Center (2006), there is an achievement gap in Pennsylvania’s public schools as measured by the Pennsylvania System of School Assessment (PSSA). The achievement gap is the difference between the level students actually achievement and what the Commonwealth has established as its academic goals for all students. More than one-third of the students are failing to meet the state’s “Proficiency” standards in math and reading. Students from low-income families score behind other students on the PSSA and the gap is wider as students move from elementary school to the high school level.

Purpose of the Study

     The Education Policy and Leadership Council (2006) states, “Pennsylvania lacks a rational state system of financing its school.” The general assembly took steps to change this situation and passed legislation that directs a Costing Out Study to review the adequacy and equity of the school funding program. The study will determine the adequacy of school resources to meet state educational objectives and distribute those funds to local districts so that children, regardless of the district where they attend school, can succeed at achieving those objectives.
     Pennsylvania has 501 school districts. According to the Educational Leadership and Policy Center, (2006), these districts have a wide range of wealth. Currently, two factors are used to determine school district wealth, real estate values and personal income. Generally, state funds are distributed to school districts in an inverse proportion to the school district’s wealth. However critics of the system contend that poorer school districts do not receive enough of the funds to operate quality schools.
     Are the wealthy school districts educationally advantaged? It is assumed that wealthy school districts can easily raise revenue to meet the states established performance standards. It is further assumed that students who do attend schools in wealthy districts do, in fact, have a higher success rate at reaching the state’s academic standards and assessments. There is an equity factor built into to the current funding system, but critics contend that the current plan does not go far enough and that poorer school districts do not receive a fair share of the educational funds and are disadvantaged at meeting the established academic goals.
     This study looks at the above assumptions to determine if there is a connection between school district wealth and student academic achievement. Is there a substantial link between school wealth and academic achievement? If educational funds could be distributed more fairly to all school children, would children who reside in poorer school districts have a better chance at meeting state academic objectives?

Research Design

     This researcher selected a correlation study to determine if the wealth of a school district is associated with the student success rate at achieving state academic standards. The data obtained from this study will permit the analysis of two questions:

1. Do the data support the assumption that students who attend schools in wealthy school districts have higher academic achievement than students who attend schools in poorer school districts?
2. Is there a substantial difference in wealth between Pennsylvania’s poorest and wealthiest school districts?

     This study uses data and information collected by the Pennsylvania Department of Education (PDE). The methods the state has used to collect data have remained constant for more than a decade providing reliable sources of data for this design.
     Two criterion groups are drawn form the 500 operating school districts in Pennsylvania. The first group was comprised of the 30 poorest school districts (see Appendix A) and the second group included the 30 wealthiest school districts (see Appendix B). The Bryn Athyn School District was excluded from the 30 wealthy districts, since it does not offer educational programs. Midland Borough does not offer secondary school programs and was not included in the calculations for the 30 poorest school districts. The distinguishing factor determining the two samples was the Market Value/Personal Income Aid Ratio.
     The state uses two factors are used to determine school district wealth. First is the school district’s market value (MV) which is based on the real estate values in that district. The second factor is the school district’s personal income (PI) data which is collected from information provided on the state income tax forms. The MV and the PI are divided by the weighted average daily membership (WADM) to determine MV/WADM and PI/WADM. The WADM is derived by weighted enrollment where a secondary student is weighted at 1.3, an elementary student at 1.0, and a half-day kindergarten student at .5 for the days the student belongs to the district.
     The two criterion groups were compared on 2006 Scholastic Aptitude Tests (SAT) results. Individual school districts report the scores to PDE each year and a compiled for Verbal and Math reasoning scores are compiled for each school district.
     The second measure of student achievement used for this study was the Pennsylvania State System of Assessment (PSSA) scores taken from the 2006 administration. Math and Reading scores were analyzed in the two criterion groups (see Appendix C).This assessment measures student mathematics achievement and classifies the results in four categories: Math Advanced, Math Proficient, Math Basic and Math Below Basic. Similarly, students are measured in Reading Advanced, Reading Proficient, Reading Basic, and Reading Below Basic. Scores were used from the third and eleventh grade results.

Data Analysis

Do students in wealthy school districts have higher academic achievement than students in poorer school districts?
SAT Score Comparisons
     Pennsylvania’s wealthiest operating school districts in 2005-06 obtained average combined SAT scores of 1077.6 while the poorest 30 school districts had average combined SAT scores of 899.2. The wealthiest school districts had an average Verbal score of 530.1 compared to 447 in the poorest school districts. Math sores averaged 547.5 in the wealthiest school districts while the poorest school districts had and average score of 452.2 (see Appendix D).
PSSA Score Comparisons
     In 2006, 93% of the third grade students in the wealthy school districts had Math scores at Advanced Proficient or Proficient levels, while 76% of the students in the poorer school districts scored as Advanced or Proficient. The Reading scores of the students in the wealthiest 30 schools showed 85% of the students scoring at the Proficient or advanced level, while 60% of the students in the poorest 30 school districts scored at the Advanced and Proficient levels (see Table 1).
     Results for grade 11 PASSA showed that 70% of the students in wealthy school districts scored at the Advanced and Proficient levels in Math compared to 49% of the students in the poor school districts. With Reading results, 79% of the students in the wealthy school districts scored at the Advanced and Proficient levels compared to the poor school districts where only 55% scored at those levels (see Table 2).
     Is there a substantial difference in wealth between Pennsylvania’s poorest and wealthiest school districts? The poorest 30 school districts had a MV (real estate) of $99,266 per average (enrollment) and a PI (income) of $56,100 per WADM for subsidy calculations used in 2005-2006 (see Appendix A). During the same year, the state’s wealthiest 30 school districts had a MV of $586,230 per WADM and PI of $249,520 per WADM. (see Appendix B). In that year, the state’s poorest school district, Reading, had a PI of $63,516 per WADM and a market value of $36,516, while the wealthiest school district, Lower Merion, had a MV of $1,084,321 per WADM and a PI per WADM of $549,223.

Discussion

     Students in Pennsylvania’s wealthiest 30 school districts scored 19% higher in Math Advanced and Math Proficient than students in the 30 poorest school districts. In Reading, 24% more students in the wealthy school districts scored in Advanced and Proficient levels, than students in the poorer school districts. The greatest range was in grade 11 Math where the students in the wealthy district’s scored 26 percentage points higher at Advanced or Proficient levels. The smallest range was in grade 3 Math where the students in the wealthy school districts exceeded the students in the poorer school districts by 16 percentage points. In wealthy school districts, combined SAT scores were almost 179 points above the poorer school districts. As the students in the wealthy school districts scored higher on both measures, it can be concluded that wealth of the school district is related to student achievement as measured by SAT and PASSA assessments.
     Is there a substantial difference in wealth among Pennsylvania’s school districts? In the group of school districts analyzed, the wealthiest school districts had an average of $586,230 in real estate market value and $249, 520 in personal income backing up each weighted student. The poorer school districts had only $99,299 real estate and $56,100 in personal income for each weighted student. With a range of over $487,000 in real estate values and over $193,000 in personal income, the different between the two groups is certainly great.
     While a substantial difference does exist between the two groups, it is a correlation and it can not be concluded that school district wealth causes student achievement levels. (Fitz-Gibbon & Morris, 1978). More study must be undertaken on this matter with input form educators, students, citizens, and financial experts to determine how schools will be funded in Pennsylvania.

References

Abbott v. Birke (1990). 119 NJ, 187.
Education Law Center. (2006) Shortchanging our children: Opportunity gaps in Pennsylvania public schools. Retrieved
       January 31, 2007, from http://www.ecl-pa.org
The Education Leadership and policy Center. (2006) Pennsylvania education finance primer [Brochure]. Harrisburg, PA: Author.
Fitz-Gibblon, C. T. & Morris, L. L. (1978) How to calculate statistics. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Press.
Goertz, M.E. (1994) School policy finance issues in New Jersey. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American
       Education Research Association, New Orleans, LA
Pennsylvania Department of Education (2006). Statistical reports. Retrieved December 28, 2006 from http://www.pde.state.pa.us
P. A.R.S.S. et al. v. Thomas J. Ridge, Governor of the State of Pennsylvania, Eugene Hickock Secretary of Education,
       Respondents and Association of School Districts in Support of Excellence of Education et al., Intervenees. In Sp Cf PA,
       No o226, M.D. Misc. Dkt. 1998.
PA Association of Rural and Small Schools. (2004). The History of School Funding. Retrieved January 29, 2007 from
       http://www.parss.org/school_funding
Rodriquez v. San Antonio Independent School District, 337 F. Supp. 280 (W.D. Texas, 1971), rev’d., 411 U.S. 1 (1973).
Seranno v. Priest, (1971). 487, p. 2nd, 1241, 1252. California.
Sparkman, W. & Carpenter, C. (1994). School finance policy issues in Texas. Paper prepared for the annual meeting of the
       American Educational Research Association. New Orleans, LA. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. 373 422)
Ward, J. G. & Anthony, P. (Eds.). (1992). Who pays for student diversity? Population changes and educational policy.
       Newbury Park, CA: Corwin Press.

Table 1

     Top 30 School Districts     Bottom 30 School Districts                                                 

% of students scoring at     93     76
Proficient and Advanced
Proficient in Math

% of students scoring at     85     60
Proficient and Advanced
Proficient in Reading
______________________________________________________________________________

Table 2

     Top 30 School Districts     Bottom 30 School Districts                                                 

% of students scoring at     70     49
Proficient and Advanced
Proficient in Math
% students scoring at         79     55
Proficient and Advanced
Proficient in Reading

Appendix A
Poorest Pennsylvania School Districts Relative to Market Value and Personal Income
2005-2006 School funding

Appendix B
Wealthiest School Districts Relative to Market Value and Personal Income per Weighted
Average Daily Membership for 2005-2006 School Funding

     APPENDIX C
PASSA Results by Grade and District Wealth

Appendix D